The Climb (Froome's first autobiography)

[The Hitch]

I honestly would like to know, just so I understand where you are coming from, do you think froome is clean?

He is sure Wiggins is clean because he looks like a lad who would work hard and working hard means you wouldn't have to dope even to win tdfs.
He's not as sure about froome, but ultimately he's innocent since he hasn't been proven guilty.

 

[Digger]

He is sure Wiggins is clean because he looks like a lad who would work hard and working hard means you wouldn't have to dope even to win tdfs.
He's not as sure about froome, but ultimately he's innocent since he hasn't been proven guilty.

If this is accurate, I feel bad.

 

[Nathan12]

I was interested listening to Richard Moore referring to some details in the book with regards to the contract negotiations that went on with Froome around the Vuelta in 2011. Froome was on a 100,000 euros per year contract at the time and prior to the Vuelta Sky were at best offering a reduced 60,000 euros per year contract (which isn't much above the minimum that WT riders receive) and they weren't even certain whether they wanted to keep him at all. Brailsford even sent a text message to Froome's agent stating that Froome had done ''nothing'' to deserve any more than they were offering.

It all points to the idea that Sky had absolutely nothing to do with Froome's doping in the 2011 Vuelta. Froome was on his uppers at the time, worried about his future, and crossed over to the dark side. It's a tale as old as time itself.

Yes- but it's what happened next that's interesting. Did they find out or realise what he'd done- but his performance had been so good that they turned a blind eye/facilitated a continuation of the doping? Or was Froome protected by the Bilharzia story?

 

[The Hitch]

Read my response to the hog above.



If you can't be bothered to read the book, then don't comment on his style of writing. You're not credible on it.

It reminds me at the time of the JTL story and we had guys judging the article he wrote on it without even reading it in the first place.

I have read 4 books in relation to Walsh (Seven Deadly Sins, From Lance to Landis, Sky book and the Gareth Southgate autobiography he ghost wrote) and only the Sky book comes off as mixed.

In the case of the Southgate one which Froome's will be done in the same format as it's ghost written, I didn't find any problems with the style of writing.

if they didn't read the book that would also explain why they didn't comment on Walsh's writing, which is what you seem to.be getting on their asses about.

"Oh why weren't you critisizing Walsh like that when he wrote sds"- because they didn't read it.

They only saw what Walsh's writing was like in the book about sky. Which is why they only started to criticize his writing there, and rightly so cos it was a ****ing disgrace.

The only time, in nearly two years that I've ever seen martinvickers, in his fervent defense of sky and British sport in general, yield so much as a millimeter, was on Walsh's writing in the book which even he aknowledged was poor.
That's telling.

 

[JRanton]

Yes- but it's what happened next that's interesting. Did they find out or realise what he'd done- but his performance had been so good that they turned a blind eye/facilitated a continuation of the doping? Or was Froome protected by the Bilharzia story?

Yeah, those are the unanswered questions. Froome has always been the biggest outlier. Wiggins, Rogers and Porte are also highly suspect but I think you could always at least attempt to make a case that they were/are in fact riding clean. Froome's sudden transformation was just utterly ridiculous and by far the most reasonable explanation for that transformation is that he started doping.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes- but it's what happened next that's interesting. Did they find out or realise what he'd done- but his performance had been so good that they turned a blind eye/facilitated a continuation of the doping? Or was Froome protected by the Bilharzia story?

Even if that's true, they've embraced the froome story so hard now -the bilharzia story, the claims brailsford always knew froome was the world's greatest talent, the total disinterest in finding out his Vam, the scam they pulled with the data they gave to the guy sho vouched for Armstrong to say froome looks clean, giving him everything they gave Wiggins - same excuses ("lance was 10 years ago, I'm proof cycling is clean, I would rather be poor than dope etc) same training - reverse periodization or whatever that mumbo jumbo was..., it would be very difficult to sustain a theory that froome has been solo doping for all his time at sky.

If froome was solo doping sky would be guilty of a) showing a bizarre disinterest in finding out if this too good to be true story really was too good to be true, and b) lying on his behalf to such an extent that few would ever possibly believe they weren't in on it themselves

 

[The Hitch]

Yeah, those are the unanswered questions. Froome has always been the biggest outlier. Wiggins, Rogers and Porte are also highly suspect but I think you could always at least attempt to make a case that they were/are in fact riding clean. Froome's sudden transformation was just utterly ridiculous and by far the most reasonable explanation for that transformation is that he started doping.

I don't know. People IMO say that with Wiggins because he broke out when people didn't think of doping as much and when they did, they see 2009 Tour as a prescedent that is somehow supposed to show he can do well clean. Wiggins never even had to come up with an explanation like Froome has had to, and nor did any rider who emerged out of nowhere.

Sky tried the same thing with Froome later by using his 2011 Vuelta result as a prior good result that is supposed to show Froome was perfectly capable of winning the Tour later (the data they show the Armstrong defender last year deliberately did not go back to 2011 Vuelta, becuase they want to pretend that like with Wiggins 2009 Tour, that is supposed to be some sort of pre suspicion data point which even sceptics won't question).

Anyway if we move back a bit to say 2006 or earlier and look at wiggos 2009 Tour from that view, I don't see how his 4th (3rd if not for technicalities) was really any less of a transformation than Froomes 2nd (1st if not for technicalities) at the 2011 Vuelta. The TDF of course has a better field and whatsmore was doped to the rafters. Hell we know now even the breakaway riders from that Tour were on full doping programmes. And Wiggins had shown even less climbing ability than Froome had by that stage. He had also just done a full giro and only had a few weeks to prepare for the Tour compared to a rested Froome who went into the 2011 Vuelta far more fresh than anyone apart from the man who beat him. And wiggins was 29 years old.

IMO A 29 year old Wiggins has that transformation in 2011 like Froome and it gets treated as the more ridiculous of the 2. The only reason he gets let off so lightly is because he had it during what some call the "epo" era when people didn't think so much about doping and when they started to think about it they wrongly saw Wiggins as someone who had proven himself already.

 

[RownhamHill]

I don't know. People IMO say that with Wiggins because he broke out when people didn't think of doping as much and when they did, they see 2009 Tour as a prescedent that is somehow supposed to show he can do well clean. Wiggins never even had to come up with an explanation like Froome has had to, and nor did any rider who emerged out of nowhere.

Sky tried the same thing with Froome later by using his 2011 Vuelta result as a prior good result that is supposed to show Froome was perfectly capable of winning the Tour later (the data they show the Armstrong defender last year deliberately did not go back to 2011 Vuelta, becuase they want to pretend that like with Wiggins 2009 Tour, that is supposed to be some sort of pre suspicion data point which even sceptics won't question).

Anyway if we move back a bit to say 2006 or earlier and look at wiggos 2009 Tour from that view, I don't see how his 4th (3rd if not for technicalities) was really any less of a transformation than Froomes 2nd (1st if not for technicalities) at the 2011 Vuelta. The TDF of course has a better field and whatsmore was doped to the rafters. Hell we know now even the breakaway riders from that Tour were on full doping programmes. And Wiggins had shown even less climbing ability than Froome had by that stage. He had also just done a full giro and only had a few weeks to prepare for the Tour compared to a rested Froome who went into the 2011 Vuelta far more fresh than anyone apart from the man who beat him. And wiggins was 29 years old.

IMO A 29 year old Wiggins has that transformation in 2011 like Froome and it gets treated as the more ridiculous of the 2. The only reason he gets let off so lightly is because he had it during what some call the "epo" era when people didn't think so much about doping and when they started to think about it they wrongly saw Wiggins as someone who had proven himself already.

Isn't a key difference between Wiggins 2009 transformation and Froome's 2011 transformation that Froome hadn't spent the previous 8 years concentrating on winning 6 Olympic medals (three of which were gold) in a completely different discipline of cycling? And didn't Wiggins do quite well in the aspects of road cycling (prologues and TTs) that he did focus on in 06/07? It certainly might be that those things are factors worthy of consideration.

 

[VO2 Max]

Isn't a key difference between Wiggins 2009 transformation and Froome's 2011 transformation that Froome hadn't spent the previous 8 years concentrating on winning 6 Olympic medals (three of which were gold) in a completely different discipline of cycling? And didn't Wiggins do quite well in the aspects of road cycling (prologues and TTs) that he did focus on in 06/07? It certainly might be that those things are factors worthy of consideration.

Kind of. Certainly that clouds the water a lot, plus for the general public they get that he was an Olympic champion so obviously he was amazing at all types of cycling. Someone will have the stats but he wasn't even that great at world-level TTs prior to 2009, and certainly nowhere near the unbeatable level of 2012.

 

[thehog]

Read my response to the hog above.



If you can't be bothered to read the book, then don't comment on his style of writing. You're not credible on it.

It reminds me at the time of the JTL story and we had guys judging the article he wrote on it without even reading it in the first place.

I have read 4 books in relation to Walsh (Seven Deadly Sins, From Lance to Landis, Sky book and the Gareth Southgate autobiography he ghost wrote) and only the Sky book comes off as mixed.

In the case of the Southgate one which Froome's will be done in the same format as it's ghost written, I didn't find any problems with the style of writing.

I never read it because I'd read LA Conf and Lance to Landis. I knew it all already and knew Walsh was a terrible writer. Stop being so pedantic.

I read Inside Sky for the comedic value though. And I'm going to read the Climb so I can post the best parts here!

 

[thehog]

No, there was no real criticism by the regulars on this forum about Seven Deadly Sins and From Lance to Landis.

Thats because you didn't post here back in 2009-2010.

The point being the Clinic was SDS in post format. But a much better version. No one here who was part of the original Clinic 12 needed to read it.

We were way better than Walsh.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Kind of. Certainly that clouds the water a lot, plus for the general public they get that he was an Olympic champion so obviously he was amazing at all types of cycling. Someone will have the stats but he wasn't even that great at world-level TTs prior to 2009, and certainly nowhere near the unbeatable level of 2012.

Ugh. This same 4km pursuit wolrd / olympic champion line over and over again. I mean. They wouldn't raise it if they didn't think it meant something, but personally, no, I don't believe it for a moment.

Even Wiggins cites his l'Avenir stage as proof he could climb and win, so no. His focus on the track didn't stop him from racing on the road or training on the road. They do the same efforts for road and then tune up on the track.

What Wiggo did in 2009 was against known, proven dopers.
What Wiggo did in 2012 was off the richter scale.

 

[The Hitch]

Isn't a key difference between Wiggins 2009 transformation and Froome's 2011 transformation that Froome hadn't spent the previous 8 years concentrating on winning 6 Olympic medals (three of which were gold) in a completely different discipline of cycling?

No, since Wiggins spent at least 2 full years of that time concentrating entirely on road. he said so himself in 2005 that it was 100% road from that point until 2007.

So try again.

 

[Tangled Tango]

Have to laugh at people who now say Walsh can't write a good book when they didn't open their mouths and say anything of the sort when he wrote Seven Deadly Sins and From Lance to Landis. I thought both were very good books.

A fair bit of revisionism is going on here.

People must remember, Walsh is just the ghost writer so the story isn't about him. None of this book is his own opinions. It's not a biography whereby he's doing his own portrayal of Froome.

I?ve only read Walsh?s "From Lance to Landis" and I thought it was written well enough. I didn?t expect anything more than what it was; a more or less journalistic approach to the darker side of cycling. Knowing his history with Lance, I was surprised and disappointed to hear he had jumped on the Froome/Sky bandwagon. Hard to figure.

 

[thehog]

I?ve only read Walsh?s "From Lance to Landis" and I thought it was well written. I didn?t expect anything more than what it was; a journalistic approach to a sport I am passionate about and it?s darker side. Knowing his history with Lance, I was surprised and disappointed to hear he had jumped on the Froome/Sky bandwagon. Hard to figure.

The reviews on SDS all read the same:

A story about a story

Seven Deadly Sins is an interesting read if you want details of what it was like trying to expose Lance Armstrong. A story about the story, if you like.

We think the book works well and is a compelling read up until the point Walsh stops covering the Tour. Thus the Lance comeback Tours in 2009 and 2010 are barely mentioned. Then it becomes more of an appendix, describing events that led to Armstrong's downfall but mostly from afar rather than first hand. There a plenty of interesting nuggets in it but we found the change in style a little messy and rushed.

Given Armstrong's lifetime ban and the stripping of his seven Tour de France victories as a result of the USADA investigation

 

[Benotti69]

Isn't a key difference between Wiggins 2009 transformation and Froome's 2011 transformation that Froome hadn't spent the previous 8 years concentrating on winning 6 Olympic medals (three of which were gold) in a completely different discipline of cycling? And didn't Wiggins do quite well in the aspects of road cycling (prologues and TTs) that he did focus on in 06/07? It certainly might be that those things are factors worthy of consideration.

The Wiggins concentrating on the olympics and not the road is a myth for large parts of his career and has been debunked many times in here before.

 

[roundabout]

I was interested listening to Richard Moore referring to some details in the book with regards to the contract negotiations that went on with Froome around the Vuelta in 2011. Froome was on a 100,000 euros per year contract at the time and prior to the Vuelta Sky were at best offering a reduced 60,000 euros per year contract (which isn't much above the minimum that WT riders receive) and they weren't even certain whether they wanted to keep him at all. Brailsford even sent a text message to Froome's agent stating that Froome had done ''nothing'' to deserve any more than they were offering.

It all points to the idea that Sky had absolutely nothing to do with Froome's doping in the 2011 Vuelta. Froome was on his uppers at the time, worried about his future, and crossed over to the dark side. It's a tale as old as time itself.

The real question is why did Sky give Froome the key to the city so to speak

 

[Nathan12]

The real question is why did Sky give Froome the key to the city so to speak

They didn't. Froome stole the key, then Sky saw how good he looked with it and let him keep it. IMO.

 

[RownhamHill]

No, since Wiggins spent at least 2 full years of that time concentrating entirely on road. he said so himself in 2005 that it was 100% road from that point until 2007.

So try again.

And didn't Wiggins do quite well in the aspects of road cycling (prologues and TTs) that he did focus on in 06/07?

 

[Nathan12]

And didn't Wiggins do quite well in the aspects of road cycling (prologues and TTs) that he did focus on in 06/07?

No. Apart from that one TT to Albi when he finished 4th. Apart from that he was pack fodder.

 

[The Hitch]

And yet at no point in those years did Wiggins while riding tour climbs 30 minutes down on the leaders think-****, this is actually quite easy, I can probably ride this peyresoudes thing as fast as contador and Rasmussen out front and faster than Evans, kash, kloeden etc in the second group.

No he told kimmage merely riding the tour was the hardest thing.

He didn't once in 2 whole seasons realize that he was one of the most gifted climbers in the history of the sport? Please.

A rider with wiggos alleged ability would not have been finishing that low down on mountain stages if they were carrying rucksacks with bricks on their backs.

 

[gooner]

He is sure Wiggins is clean because he looks like a lad who would work hard and working hard means you wouldn't have to dope even to win tdfs.
He's not as sure about froome, but ultimately he's innocent since he hasn't been proven guilty.

I see lying is now another of your specialties.

I can more than speak for myself.

 

[gooner]

if they didn't read the book that would also explain why they didn't comment on Walsh's writing, which is what you seem to.be getting on their asses about.

"Oh why weren't you critisizing Walsh like that when he wrote sds"- because they didn't read it.

They only saw what Walsh's writing was like in the book about sky. Which is why they only started to criticize his writing there, and rightly so cos it was a ****ing disgrace.

I've criticised that book but there's a generalisation put forward by members of this forum he is a poor writer full stop. That wasn't said by them in reference to his other books with Lance before he reported inside Sky. Hog has read From Lance to Landis and is now trying to revise and say it was a poorly written book. Why wasn't that said by him before Lance's fall? Walsh was always widely discussed before reporting on Sky. Remember Kimmage has From Lance to Landis down in his top 10 sports book of all time.

Like I said, I've read 4 books(plus large translated extracts from LA) with regards to Walsh and I found little problem with 3 of them. This book with Froome is Walsh just ghost writing it through Froome's own eyes and not his own opinions. He has done this in the past in other sports with Lawrence Dallaglio, Paula Radcliffe and Gareth Southgate. In relation to the latter a book that I read a long while back, there was no issue with me in how he wrote it. I never read his Dallaglio work but it won awards and was shortlisted for other ones.

If you're going to judge someone's writing style, you need to have a more rounded knowledge of his work and the books he penned.

The only time, in nearly two years that I've ever seen martinvickers, in his fervent defense of sky and British sport in general, yield so much as a millimeter, was on Walsh's writing in the book which even he aknowledged was poor.
That's telling.

I said at the time the book had it's faults and martin and I were the first to say that on this forum since we were the first to take the trouble to actual read it. Not like yourself and your ilk who were trying to pass judgement without reading it in the first place.

No doubt that will be tried once again when the book is released tomorrow.

 

[thehog]

I've criticised that book but there's a generalisation put forward by members of this forum he is a poor writer full stop. That wasn't said by them in reference to his other books with Lance before he reported inside Sky. Hog has read From Lance to Landis and is now trying to revise and say it was a poorly written book.

No doubt that will be tried once again when the book is released tomorrow.

I always said on the forum Walsh was a poor writer. I didn't like how he drew his conclusions on Armstrong and then found evidence to match. I would have preferred he investigated the topic and drew a final summary. He didn't do that.

And I was one of the biggest Armstrong critics going around.

I never thought Walsh was much of anything. I liked that he was a sh!t stirrer but he certainly wasn't much else.

I'm not sure why you keep making stuff up.

 

[Digger]

I see lying is now another of your specialties.

I can more than speak for myself.

Well I have been asking you for a while now, on and off, if you think Froome is clean...no answer.